I have a question about PSL. My organizational background is in labor mostly, though I have done some door knocking for critical elections.
How is your candidate getting however many votes (feel free to estimate) going to help the working class? Or alternatively, how does your electoral campaign help PSL? Is this ultimately a recruitment drive?
I don't understand how a genocide can be taken so lightly. Some people have trouble casting a vote for any political party that sponsors one.
Maybe vote count is instructive:
Nader 2000: 2,882,955
Nader 2004: 465,650
McKinney 2008: 161,797
Stein 2012: 469,501
Stein 2016: 1,457,216
Hawkins 2020: 407,068
I don't think the party would collapse without Stein. They have been around for decades and they have a cadre of oranizers who will continue to show up regardless of results. Stein is just the most famous person they can use for a presidential election, and you can see from the above results what happens when they run someone nobody has heard of.
I think they genuinely believe in their core values, and it's unfortunate that Stein is their only viable candidate. They won't ever be a real political party until they start winning local/state elections, but they're looking to secure more federal funding by getting enough votes. If Stein disappeared then they would keep doing this but they'd never breach half a million votes. Maybe a progressive democrat in the House would smell an opportunity and break ranks to run for president with the Greens. That could maybe get them a million or two votes again.
Or maybe it absolutely does not matter who they run and they just get a lot of votes when the Democrats run particularly shitty candidates for president.
It's a reduction based on the history of regimes that call themselves communist... You don't see a problem here? Maybe I'm just being pedantic but Marxian communism doesn't have anything in common with any form of government in history. It's more of an idealized state (state meaning condition, not polity). Nobody, apart from so-called primitive communist societies, can claim to be communist.
Your definition of communism further proves the earlier point about semantic drift. All of these terms are problematic because of their histories in the past 200 years.
The issue is that they are run as for-profit businesses but the product that they provide is a public good. They make money by providing as little product as possible. This type of structure is fine if your company makes luxury goods, but in the case of health insurance it results in unnecessary pain and death.
How do I jam a set of folding over-ear headphones into the top pocket of a backpack without tangling the cord with all the other crap I have in there?
Cool, thanks for assuming the women in my life think I'm throwing them under the bus. I love your inclusive outlook.
Yeah I totally agree. I listen to Ralph's radio show, and he's still kicking. As sharp as ever. But we could use another one that's 50 years younger.
Ah yes, the latest in-group propaganda campaign. Please honor me with your downvotes.
I think you're suggesting Trump would be worse than Harris for the cause. But my point is that a lot of people feel that voting for either is sanctioning genocide, and Stein fills that niche by condemning it. It's pretty low-hanging fruit for a politician.
I'm legitimately curious as to how college protestors could be hurting the cause.